SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA—The third day of testimony in the blockbuster Apple v. Samsung patent trial is underway, and Samsung strategy officer Justin Denison faced some uncomfortable questions this morning. Denison took the stand and fielded questions from an Apple lawyer about an internal e-mail discussing a "crisis in design" at Samsung.

In the long e-mail, a Samsung designer, sometimes waxing poetic, described how he felt his company was behind the iPhone when it came to user interface (UX) features. The e-mail, translated from the Korean, was displayed to the jury. The selected excerpt read:

All this time we've been paying all our attention to Nokia, and concentrated our efforts on things like Folder, Bar, Slide, yet when our UX is compared to the unexpected competitor Apple's iPhone, the difference is truly that of Heaven and Earth.

It's a crisis of design.

The world is changing, and the flow of change isn't something that you can have come back again by going against the flow.

Further down the long e-mail, the designer noted how difficult Samsung's Omnia was to use, asking: "When you compare the 2007 version of the iPhone with our current Omnia, can you honestly say the Omnia is better?"

When Apple's lawyer Bill Lee grilled him about the e-mail, Denison suggested that the "crisis" language didn't mean much.

Questioned by Samsung lawyer John Quinn about the e-mail, Denison described Samsung as a company that is "very humble, very self-critical," he said. He also noted that the Omnia is a dated phone that ran the Windows Mobile operating system—not one of Samsung's newer smartphones with Google's Android system.

Quinn highlighted another part of the e-mail, showing off what the same Samsung designer did feel confident about. That part of the e-mail read as follows:

I have confidence in our products' H/W [hardware], in their exterior design, and in their quality. But when it comes to ease of use of our UX [user interface], I lack such confidence.

Our most important asset is our screen. It is very important that we make the screen size bigger, and in the future mobile phones will absorb even the function of e-books.

A judge speaks through judgments, an engineer speaks through products, and a designer should not need to speak.

That is all.

"Is Samsung satisfied with its success?" asked Quinn.

"No," said Denison. "Historically, we have celebrated wins very briefly and then moved on to the next challenge."

Denison: Idea that Samsung is "ripping off Apple" is offensive

When Samsung's own lawyers stepped up to question Denison, they asked him to respond to earlier Apple witnesses who had spoken about their anger at what they saw as copying by Samsung.

"What is your reaction to being accused of ripping off Apple?" asked Samsung lawyer John Quinn.

"I find it very offensive," answered Denison. Samsung is proud of its products, he said. "We've been in the mobile business over 20 years globally, and we've been in the US the last 15 years. The last four years we've been number one in the US market. What we would like to do is simply compete in that market... to deliver the latest technology to as many consumers as possible."

Their exchange continued:

Quinn: "Are there some features that Samsung added first, and then Apple added later?"

Denison: "Yes... One example is voice recognition... Another is advanced screen technology—we launched super AMOLED. We also launched the first cloud based video service in the US, and did that prior to Apple."

Quinn: "When Apple later offered those features in its phones, did you feel like they ripped you off?"

Denison: "No, not really."

Quinn: "Were you outraged?"

Denison: "No."

Quinn: "If the iPhone 5 comes out, and has a bigger screen—more the size of the Galaxy II screen—are you going to regard that as 'copying?'"

Denison: "No."

After Denison stepped down from the stand, Apple called industrial designer Peter Bressler to the stand. Bressler is an expert witness (paid by Apple) who is testifying that (surprise) Samsung infringes on the four design patents in the case.

Bressler's testimony continued through the lunch break on Monday. Ars will continue to report as the proceedings go on.

193 Reader Comments

So alot of talk about ONE side of the trail, Apple vs Samsung (Apple accusing Samsung of copying), what about the other side of the trail Samsuing vs Apple (Apple refusing to pay for patents they admit to be using), hasn't it been mentioned yet, or it is just being ignored by the media?

Isn't that literally a different lawsuit?

It was two separate cases, but they have been merged together into this one. This is why I ask, in the media exposure this fact hasn't been brought up since the trial started.

That's funny, really. They're posting the documents and adding commentary around them on the state of the actual law. How is that not impartial?!

Even ignoring that, who would you provide as an alternative?

Read the Verge instead. Just ignore the comments.

The site that uses photoshopped images as evidence? I prefer the site that uses actual evidence and briefs from the case... but maybe I am not fanatic enough about Apple, anymore? Perhaps I need to light 10 candles and say 10 hail Steve Jobs before going to bed.

The site that uses photoshopped images as evidence? I prefer the site that uses actual evidence and briefs from the case... but maybe I am not fanatic enough about Apple, anymore? Perhaps I need to light 10 candles and say 10 hail Steve Jobs before going to bed.

The Verge doesn't have 'evidence', they're a tech blog for fucks sake.

So alot of talk about ONE side of the trail, Apple vs Samsung (Apple accusing Samsung of copying), what about the other side of the trail Samsuing vs Apple (Apple refusing to pay for patents they admit to be using), hasn't it been mentioned yet, or it is just being ignored by the media?

Isn't that literally a different lawsuit?

It was two separate cases, but they have been merged together into this one. This is why I ask, in the media exposure this fact hasn't been brought up since the trial started.

I have read that Samsung reduced their patent claims, to 9 I believe, but have seen no list of claims. If this is about FRAND, I see no issue except the proper calculation of license fees, but since there is no list I don't know if these are FRAND patents or not.

Until this case is over the local market will run out of popcorns LoL.

My opinion is that Apple knows two main products (Iphone and Ipad) can not keep this company going forever, and they have to do whatever it takes to maximize sales until the Apple Hype is over.

Granted Apple makes good stuff, but they cannot sue everyone if Sony or Asus comes up with a cooler looking Laptop for the Half Price, the consumer will eventually be aware that Apple products are overpriced with very unfriendly for fixing or upgrades. Then will come the fall, unless they change the policy of thinking ``We change the World and we are the Best`` hahah.

Steve Jobs was a Genius of marketing nothing more.

I am not talking here about if Samsung copied Iphone or not. But these cheap tactics by Apple is just pushing above average consumers like me further away from their products. ( By Above average I do not mean Apple users are dumb but I mean anyone who uses PCs more than only for surfing or trying to look cool cos the laptop has a shiny casing)

Irrelevant unless Google patented or registered marks for the Notification Center that Apple then used.

Why is it wrong to protect IP?

Because it discourages innovation, rather than doing what the law states it is there for. And why does it matter that someone lodged a bit of paper? If it should be protected, logically it should all be protected. That way you wouldn't have companies like Apple blatantly stealing while at the same time suing. And you wouldn't have companies spending ridiculous amounts of money buying "protective" patents. That's not innovation, it's stupidity - but it's the kind of stupidity that Apple seems to excel in lately.

I suppose some people are comfortable with the concept "if we can't beat them in the market, we'll beat them in the courtroom".

I suppose some people are comfortable with the concept "if we can't beat them in the market, we'll beat them in the courtroom".

In much the same way the majority are OK with blatant copying going without punishment. Plagiarism is far worse for innovation than the canard that most present as their imagined model of IP protection.

Who gives a damn? As long as Samsung isn't pretending to be making an Apple product, let them make what they want. The victor should be good execution of concept, good pricing and good quality of product, not whoever added a given feature first.

No one would ever mistake an Apple product for a Samsung product, because the people who buy Apple are usually extremely brand conscious and buy their products explicitly for being Apple products.

Who gives a damn? As long as Samsung isn't pretending to be making an Apple product, let them make what they want. The victor should be good execution of concept, good pricing and good quality of product, not whoever added a given feature first.

That is the whole crux of the case; Apple are accusing Samsung of "pretending to be making an Apple product" in the visual similarities of the look and feel of the devices, OS and even the packaging that Samsung's products are sold in.

In simple terms, what Samsung have done with some of their phones is tantamount to someone taking a paper on a given subject (for the sake of argument, lets say it's an English paper on Moby Dick), changing a few nouns and verbs here and there and trying to pass it off as original work and then when answering accusations of plagiarism stating that there is essentially only one way to write such a paper despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. What you are suggesting is equivalent to saying that students who get good grades should let their classmates copy them so that they can get good, or potentially better grades too. That's not competition. That's cheating and no-one really benefits.

It's called "The Internet". Years ago, they contracted Al Gore to invent it

Everybody moves towards what people want, or they fail cough RIM cough... Sedans were stretched into Station Wagons. Then, Chrysler basically invented the minivan - and everybody started making them. Then SUVs became the rage, now the Crossover.

What about the pickup truck? Who gets credit for inventing that, and why isn't there just one legal manufacturer?

If there are any experts, I hope they will correct me, but I believe patents last 7 years. So the car analogy isn't applicable as those designs are more than 7 years old. The problem now is that technology is advancing so fast that the old 7 year patent protection comes up more often. 7 years from now Samsung can make an exactly copy of the iPhone and be in the clear, as long os they don't step on any trademarks. Of course, at our current pace, by then, nobody would want it, except maybe for nostalgia.

But this line of attack is different: they are complaining that Samsung is studying details of competing UIs and trying to match industry best-practice. But that's par for the course in any industry, or does Apple claim to have a patent on matching colours to function?

First of all: thank your for admitting that Apple is defining the industry best-practice at least in UI design. Too many Fandroids would never admit anything like that.

But to come back to your point: if you want to stop using sucky icons, why do you have to replace them with near perfect copies of Apple icons? Are Apple's really that perfect that there is no other way to do it?

Irrelevant unless Google patented or registered marks for the Notification Center that Apple then used.

Why is it wrong to protect IP?

Because it discourages innovation, rather than doing what the law states it is there for. And why does it matter that someone lodged a bit of paper? If it should be protected, logically it should all be protected. That way you wouldn't have companies like Apple blatantly stealing while at the same time suing. And you wouldn't have companies spending ridiculous amounts of money buying "protective" patents. That's not innovation, it's stupidity - but it's the kind of stupidity that Apple seems to excel in lately.

I suppose some people are comfortable with the concept "if we can't beat them in the market, we'll beat them in the courtroom".

Are you really arguing that icons of similar appearance and color is innovative? That sounds like the classic definition of derivative to me.

Or do you mean appearance? That matching the colors and materials is also innovative?

Samesung just 'competes' stealing ideas. They used to copy the Treo and blackberry. Now they just focus in Apple designs.

Well, color me Microsoft... that's what they've been doing for years. They are not innovators. Rather, they take others ideas and build them out to be the best product in the marketplace. Look at Excel. That was a blatant copy of Lotus 1-2-3 which was a blatant copy of VisiCalc.

Let's be clear: I am not a fan of Steve jobs. He sounds to me, from everything I can see, like he was a narcissistic asshole with serious emotional or mental issues. I can't imagine being his friend, let alone living with him. That said, he was more than simply a marketing genius. His major skill, in my view, was editing out the stuff that most folks didn't use or want. Too much of technology is designed by geeks and, as such, isn't well designed for the average person. Steve Jobs really excelled at stripping the extraneous stuff away. Sure, I want more than the basics but I also recognize that I am not most folks. In my experience, well over 95% of the population simple don't care for extra doo-dads on their stuff.

Catering to the portion of that 95% that has disposable income is what Steve Jobs really excelled at.

Irrelevant unless Google patented or registered marks for the Notification Center that Apple then used.

Why is it wrong to protect IP?

it isn't wrong to protect IP. It is wrong to use said IP in ways which discourage innovation, especially when you patent or "lock up" things which are really quite obvious. The patent system as it exists is terribly broken, approving many things which it ought not to approve. Companies, being what they are, will use it to their advantage. This is a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself. Not everyone abuses the process, though, as Apple appears to be doing. They are making claims which many know to simply be false. They didn't invent the smartphone; they simply released the first version done in a way that works for most folks. Honestly, I like Apple's restrictive model because I get paid hourly to help people figure out why using it isn't working for them.

As an IT consultant for a decade now, roughly 12% of my clients are Apple users but over 30% of my revenue comes from them. I do not market specifically to Apple users, either. Those numbers tell me things Apple makes do not "just work" nor are they as intuitive as Apple claims.

it isn't wrong to protect IP. It is wrong to use said IP in ways which discourage innovation, especially when you patent or "lock up" things which are really quite obvious.

And how does copying promote innovation? Copying is the very antithesis of innovation. Let's use the Photo app icon as an example as it's the most subtle. Why did the Samsung "designers" feel the need to use sunflower petals as a background to the icon? It has absolutely nothing to do with photographs or photography, the only link being that Apple have used a sunflower on their Photo app. Much of what is being claimed as obvious are obvious-after-the-fact.

Nilt wrote:

The patent system as it exists is terribly broken, approving many things which it ought not to approve. Companies, being what they are, will use it to their advantage. This is a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself. Not everyone abuses the process, though, as Apple appears to be doing. They are making claims which many know to simply be false.

Other than that being argumentum ad populum

Nilt wrote:

They didn't invent the smartphone; they simply released the first version done in a way that works for most folks.

They have never claimed to. Jobs is said to have exclaimed that "Android is a stolen product." Very different, and an opinion that I personally find difficult. iOS has clearly influenced Androids direction, Samsung took it beyond influence with Touchwiz.

Nilt wrote:

Honestly, I like Apple's restrictive model because I get paid hourly to help people figure out why using it isn't working for them.

As an IT consultant for a decade now, roughly 12% of my clients are Apple users but over 30% of my revenue comes from them. I do not market specifically to Apple users, either. Those numbers tell me things Apple makes do not "just work" nor are they as intuitive as Apple claims.

Anecdotal at best, with a touch of argumentum ad verecundiam thrown in for good measure and topped off with a cheap troll. In truth, meaningless and nothing to do with the protection of IP.

Hate on Apple all you want, but to paint a company like Samsung as an innocent and wounded party is loathsome. Have a read of this. A contemptible organisation if ever there was one.

Sure, throw in some Latin ... that will debunk everything someone says.

AnotherNetNarcissist wrote:

Nilt wrote:

it isn't wrong to protect IP. It is wrong to use said IP in ways which discourage innovation, especially when you patent or "lock up" things which are really quite obvious.

And how does copying promote innovation? Copying is the very antithesis of innovation. Let's use the Photo app icon as an example as it's the most subtle. Why did the Samsung "designers" feel the need to use sunflower petals as a background to the icon? It has absolutely nothing to do with photographs or photography, the only link being that Apple have used a sunflower on their Photo app. Much of what is being claimed as obvious are obvious-after-the-fact.

It doesn't have to be obvious to the general public but, rather, to one "skilled in the art". This test has consistently been ignored time and again, allowing patents to be granted for things that are later deemed to have plenty of prior art, though using slightly varying methodology. I agree much of what is "good design" sure seems obvious once you see it. That doesn't debunk the fact that those skilled in the art of something will have considered it a good idea for years, potentially, without getting it approved in an actual product.

Quote:

Nilt wrote:

The patent system as it exists is terribly broken, approving many things which it ought not to approve. Companies, being what they are, will use it to their advantage. This is a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself. Not everyone abuses the process, though, as Apple appears to be doing. They are making claims which many know to simply be false.

Other than that being argumentum ad populum

This is not simply me saying this, or an appeal for "kudos" form others. This has been said over and over by many in this field. It's been stated by other, well regarded, Federal judges. Saying it's an appeal to the people does not invalidate the point when it's, you know, valid.

Quote:

Nilt wrote:

They didn't invent the smartphone; they simply released the first version done in a way that works for most folks.

They have never claimed to. Jobs is said to have exclaimed that "Android is a stolen product." Very different, and an opinion that I personally find difficult. iOS has clearly influenced Androids direction, Samsung took it beyond influence with Touchwiz.

Actually, they essentially did claim this. I don't have time to dig up all the links and such but they use the term invented regularly, as did Steve jobs. Even if they didn't, it's implicit in a patent that they have claimed to have invented something. Otherwise, what point to a patent?

Quote:

Nilt wrote:

Honestly, I like Apple's restrictive model because I get paid hourly to help people figure out why using it isn't working for them.

As an IT consultant for a decade now, roughly 12% of my clients are Apple users but over 30% of my revenue comes from them. I do not market specifically to Apple users, either. Those numbers tell me things Apple makes do not "just work" nor are they as intuitive as Apple claims.

Anecdotal at best, with a touch of argumentum ad verecundiam thrown in for good measure and topped off with a cheap troll. In truth, meaningless and nothing to do with the protection of IP.

Hate on Apple all you want, but to paint a company like Samsung as an innocent and wounded party is loathsome. Have a read of this. A contemptible organisation if ever there was one.

I wasn't hating on Apple. I have actually lauded them at times. They are far from perfect, however. I never said I thought Samsung was perfect, either. You might want to stop putting words in my mouth that didn't come out of it, so to speak. If you want to have, I dunno, actual points them perhaps you should post them. I've read the story you posted but, honestly, do you think Steve Jobs' leadership was somehow angelic and wondrous with Apple being some bastion of perfection while any other corporation is evil? All corporations, by their very natures, do things with which many of us disagree. They have an incentive, and some argue, a duty to shareholders to do so.

As far as anecdotal evidence and a cheap troll, I meant every word of that statement, anecdotal though it may be. I can base my opinions only on my own research and experience, which happens to not be slight. I read most articles about technology and follow with great interest most lawsuits relating to it as well.

You are welcome to your opinions but mine stand. There is more to this whole mess of a story than an "evil Korean company ripping off a local, US based paragon of perfection".

Sure, throw in some Latin ... that will debunk everything someone says.

I do apologise for using the appropriate language to describe the fallacy that you were using. Ad hominem at it's finest.

Nilt wrote:

It doesn't have to be obvious to the general public but, rather, to one "skilled in the art".

I never disagreed.

Nilt wrote:

This test has consistently been ignored time and again, allowing patents to be granted for things that are later deemed to have plenty of prior art, though using slightly varying methodology.

By whom?

Nilt wrote:

I agree much of what is "good design" sure seems obvious once you see it. That doesn't debunk the fact that those skilled in the art of something will have considered it a good idea for years, potentially, without getting it approved in an actual product.

And in turn that comment doesn't prove that the designs are obvious to those skilled in the art. I'll ask again, if Samsung are innocent of closely imitating iOS in Touchwiz, why use sunflower petals for a photo album app? Where is the obviousness other than iOS using a sunflower for their photo album app?

Nilt wrote:

This is not simply me saying this, or an appeal for "kudos" form others. This has been said over and over by many in this field. It's been stated by other, well regarded, Federal judges. Saying it's an appeal to the people does not invalidate the point when it's, you know, valid.

It's not a valid point, it an opinion and until those judges are in a position to rule on a case and set precedents, then they remain an opinion. When you say that something that is repeated as a truism by the majority, you are appealing to them. You are also appealing to authority, which is just as bad a fallacy.

Nilt wrote:

Actually, they essentially did claim this. I don't have time to dig up all the links and such but they use the term invented regularly, as did Steve jobs. Even if they didn't, it's implicit in a patent that they have claimed to have invented something. Otherwise, what point to a patent?

They kind of did disrupt the nascent smartphone market significantly with some specific innovations, why shouldn't they be entitled to protect the ideas?

Nilt wrote:

I wasn't hating on Apple.

Yeah you were.

Nilt wrote:

I have actually lauded them at times.

Congratulations.

Nilt wrote:

They are far from perfect, however.

I know, but not nearly as terrible are you are insisting either.

Nilt wrote:

I never said I thought Samsung was perfect, either.

I acknowledge that, although your whole argument is based around an innocent Samsung being wronged by a belligerent Apple.

Nilt wrote:

You might want to stop putting words in my mouth that didn't come out of it, so to speak. If you want to have, I dunno, actual points them perhaps you should post them.

I thought I did. I asked a question which you through a textbook Chewbacca defence at, then suggested that you were proffering anecdotal evidence as fact ans suggest that you were trolling, which you continued to do in that paragraph.

Nilt wrote:

I've read the story you posted but, honestly, do you think Steve Jobs' leadership was somehow angelic and wondrous with Apple being some bastion of perfection while any other corporation is evil?

All corporations, by their very natures, do things with which many of us disagree. They have an incentive, and some argue, a duty to shareholders to do so.

Not at all. We all know what an absolute asshole he could be. Are you suggesting that he, and by extension Apple are as crooked and corrupt as the cabal that run Samsung? Their is a massive difference between being an asshole and what Samsung do.

Nilt wrote:

As far as anecdotal evidence and a cheap troll, I meant every word of that statement, anecdotal though it may be. I can base my opinions only on my own research and experience, which happens to not be slight. I read most articles about technology and follow with great interest most lawsuits relating to it as well.

You are welcome to your opinions but mine stand.

How magnanimous of you. I'm deeply honoured. Except, I'm not really at all. Your opinion is simply that, an opinion. Its value is no greater or lesser than mine. You are welcome to your opinions and to stand by them, they don't stand on their own.

Nilt wrote:

There is more to this whole mess of a story than an "evil Korean company ripping off a local, US based paragon of perfection".

There really isn't. Nationality doesn't come into this at all and is a cheap, tacky and lazy comment. What we actually have is a lazy multinational trying to get dominant by claiming other peoples work as their own. In my opinion, it's something that Samsung have been guilty of since before this all started.

I can't wait for this rubbish to go away. There might be evidence that Samsung deliberately copied Apple in some areas, that's status quo for tech companies. It's not like they stole IP and used it, they just used existing products as inspiration for their own, which describes the history of technological advance, nobody is innovating free from outside input.

I think the accusation that Samsung is just a knock-off artist is offensive. They are one of the largest tech innovators around, which is why they are so successful and why so many companies, including Apple, use their components.

The good thing about the case is that it is parading around the flaws in our patent system. Outside of corporate espionage (ie. actual stealing of specs/code/etc), the short life-cycle of tech products makes copying almost a non-issue, which is why the real knock-off companies always lag behind, because they are always late to market. It's worth protecting IP to a point, but the look/feel patents at issue in this case should be thrown out.

The concept is called brand dilution where company A creates a profitable brand and company B cashes in on that brand by making similar looking products to trigger similar associations in the consumer mind.

Knock offs are the most flagrant example of such, but it's a slope and not a cliff. Guess did this to Gucci, for example.

The concept is called brand dilution where company A creates a profitable brand and company B cashes in on that brand by making similar looking products to trigger similar associations in the consumer mind.

Knock offs are the most flagrant example of such, but it's a slope and not a cliff. Guess did this to Gucci, for example.

To which part of what I said are you referring? My ending statement that the look/feel patents should be thrown out? If so, general shape of a tablet is ubiquitous. Those patents relating to gestures are silly, double-clicking, dragging, there are certain obvious ways to interact with a touch screen, and patents aren't meant to protect the obvious.

I understand brand dilution, but don't think tech and fashion are comparable, nor do I think Samsung's products create real brand confusion. Being inspired by other products is not the same as stealing IP. It's a matter of opinion, to be sure, but the patents at question do not seem like sufficient innovations to warrant protection.

Apple is alleging trademark infringement. That's where brand dilution and the Lanham Act figures into the calculus. The phrase "Apple's trademark style and polish," would be their brand value. Imitating Apple's style and polish would be Samsung's error here, if the jury rules in their favor. That Apple explicitly went ahead and files for 4 design patents and a slew of trademarks wrt the case just puts numbers on Apple's side. It means the filed the paperwork expressly so they could sue imitators.

To which part of what I said are you referring? My ending statement that the look/feel patents should be thrown out? If so, general shape of a tablet is ubiquitous. Those patents relating to gestures are silly, double-clicking, dragging, there are certain obvious ways to interact with a touch screen, and patents aren't meant to protect the obvious.

If by 'double-clicking' you're referring to the 'double-tap to zoom' patent, do you have any reason to call such behaviour obvious? It certainly wasn't obvious enough to every other tech company, since the first time it was used was in the original iPhone.

To which part of what I said are you referring? My ending statement that the look/feel patents should be thrown out? If so, general shape of a tablet is ubiquitous. Those patents relating to gestures are silly, double-clicking, dragging, there are certain obvious ways to interact with a touch screen, and patents aren't meant to protect the obvious.

If by 'double-clicking' you're referring to the 'double-tap to zoom' patent, do you have any reason to call such behaviour obvious? It certainly wasn't obvious enough to every other tech company, since the first time it was used was in the original iPhone.

Google maps used a double-click to zoom feature as of mid-2006. Are you suggesting that 'tap' vs. 'click' is an important distinction? You seem wrong either way on that one.

Obvious doesn't mean that everyone should know it from the dawn of time. There just aren't that many ways to interact with a touch device, double-clicking is well-known, so double-tapping seems obvious too. Picking which function you tie to that simple action is not breaking ground.

miniDisplayPort, that's a standard. So is ThunderBolt, FireWire, HDMI, etc.

Yup I was curious when I used a Galaxy Tab for the first time and that's what the charger looked like, in the back of my head I thought this might end up as an anti-trust sooner or later, but it was only after I went on Ars that I saw just how similar the designs are, especially for the UI.